From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199407251626.AA11434@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: To be or not to be? Coffee or tea? To: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 12:26:36 -0400 (ADT) Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <199407250720.AA02744@access1.digex.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Jul 25, 94 03:20:11 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 813 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jul 25 12:26:47 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab la lojbab. cusku di'e > But in the abstract, your question is valid. Each of those "lenu" clauses > has its own prenex, and if there were any quantifiable variables in or implied > in either lenu clause, then it is not automatically valid that you can > export an arbitrary logical connective past the prenex to the higher level > of your second example. I just don't see any hidden quantifiable variables > in your example. Prenexes and quantified variables aren't the problem; the problem is that abstractions, like quotations, are "referentially opaque". This is easier to see for quotation. The truth conditions for "He said 'Live or die!'" aren't the same as those for "He said 'Live!' or he said 'Die!'". -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.